First off I’d like to say I’m not in San Diego so maybe I’m detached emotionally, but it is my hope that all lives/homes/memories are saved.
Now on to my thoughts, I know alot of FBs/floppers that live in some of the neighborhoods that are burning or are close to the fires.
Do you guys think that the people who are barely hanging on financially are cheering their house to burn or maybe even willing to light the fire themselves in the hopes it can’t be proven it was them?
Also, short term what does this do to the downward trend in prices? Does this situation accelerate the trend?
I’ve heard people joke about setting fires to get out of work.. if it has been joked about then there’s someone that will do it especially to get out from under a 500k debt obligation…
I’ve heard people joke about setting fires to get out of work.. if it has been joked about then there’s someone that will do it especially to get out from under a 500k debt obligation…
I’ve heard people joke about setting fires to get out of work.. if it has been joked about then there’s someone that will do it especially to get out from under a 500k debt obligation…
I don’t understand this line of reasoning. If someone’s house burns down, the insurance company pays them for the replacement cost of the home, not the home AND land. This won’t give them anywhere near enough to pay off their mortgages. They are left with an expensive plot of raw land that nobody would buy, just enough money to rebuild the home, their original mortgage debt, and no place to live (although insurance should pay for a rental while they rebuild). How does this bail them out?
I don’t understand this line of reasoning. If someone’s house burns down, the insurance company pays them for the replacement cost of the home, not the home AND land. This won’t give them anywhere near enough to pay off their mortgages. They are left with an expensive plot of raw land that nobody would buy, just enough money to rebuild the home, their original mortgage debt, and no place to live (although insurance should pay for a rental while they rebuild). How does this bail them out?
I don’t understand this line of reasoning. If someone’s house burns down, the insurance company pays them for the replacement cost of the home, not the home AND land. This won’t give them anywhere near enough to pay off their mortgages. They are left with an expensive plot of raw land that nobody would buy, just enough money to rebuild the home, their original mortgage debt, and no place to live (although insurance should pay for a rental while they rebuild). How does this bail them out?
LOL, I totally agree. I guess my thought was most people don’t think like that honestly. They don’t know how it works if their house burns down. I know some floppers that are in trouble and they really think that this could be a “good thing”. I’ve already talked to a few on the phone.
Maybe my title should be different? (Kind of like your title about real estate is not a hedge against inflation)…..j/k
LOL, I totally agree. I guess my thought was most people don’t think like that honestly. They don’t know how it works if their house burns down. I know some floppers that are in trouble and they really think that this could be a “good thing”. I’ve already talked to a few on the phone.
Maybe my title should be different? (Kind of like your title about real estate is not a hedge against inflation)…..j/k
